Giving credit to fluoride is farcical

Saturday's Express Advocate talks about the report released by Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.

Tony Abbott selected just a few findings from the report to suit his political purposes.

Journalists who should have known better accepted the findings of the report hook, line and sinker.

Alison Branley's article is a celebration of Gosford Council's decision to fluoridate the lower Central Coast water supply.

Reading the report reveals that there are so many differences between the two generations surveyed in the report that restricting improvement in dental health to fluoride is laughable.

The generation that was brought up in a time of the Great Depression and the World War 2 had their teeth removed before any restorative work was attempted.

The beginning of 20th century dentistry was referred to in the AIHW report as a "band of itinerant tooth-pullers", consisting of barbers and pharmacists trained as apprentices (rather than at university).

Revolutionary changes in dentistry led to the younger generation not just treating but also preventing tooth decay.

Changes in diet and oral hygiene are also broadly discussed in the report.

There is a clear link established between consumption of sugar and increased dental decay.

To use the report to validate Council's decision to enforce the introduction of fluoride is very shoddy.

Improvement in dental health has been recorded worldwide and to give all credit to fluoride is farcical.

Only the English-speaking countries promote water fluoridation!

It should be noted that Americans started the fluoridation experiment one year after the Nazi Germany doctors were executed for medical experiments conducted on their war prisoners, some of which involved fluoride.

Australia is America's biggest follower in the practice that is contemptuous to democracy and to human rights.

Many western countries refuse to use fluoride and recognised it as a 'false god'.

In Europe, 98 per cent of countries do not fluoridate their water.

Only five per cent of the world's population drinks artificially fluoridated water of which 50 per cent live in North America.

By Cr Jim Macfadyen's definition all those who oppose fluoridation are "flat-earthers".

Is he aware that he is impugning the governments of fluoridation-free European countries who have scientifically advanced health systems and have children whose teeth are better than those of children in fluoridated areas?

The term "fluoride generation" sounds like a marketing campaign for toothpaste manufacturers.

How independent can the AIHW report be when it is sponsored by multinationals like Colgate who as we know have a lot riding on the fluoride issue.

Journalists like Ms Branley should do their homework and identify the competing interests in the fluoride debate and not be so biased in their conclusions.

The Gosford Council takes advantage of the limited scope and even more limited interpretation of the AIHW report and uses it to justify their decision to inject fluoride into our drinking water.

It was accepted with little criticism that Central Coast houses will be supplied with fluoridated water from the Hunter, simply because we did not seem to have a choice.

The decision to fluoridate all Central Coast water collected at Somersby and the water to be collected in the newly-built water plant in Woy Woy was made at a most vulnerable time, the time of drought and severe water restrictions.

In December 2006 the Gosford Council and NSW Health over-rode two previous community referenda where the public clearly stated that they did not want their public water fluoridated.

The Mayor has used his casting vote without community mandate based on his personal views.

The Council refuses to tell us that annual operating costs associated with purchase, dosing, monitoring and staffing of the fluoridation equipment in Somersby has been estimated at around $150,000 per year.

This includes the cost of fluoride, ongoing sampling and testing, and the seven days a week staff as required under the regulations.

We should ask the Council: Is the fluoridation plant installed at the new water treatment plant in Woy Woy going to cost the same amount?

We should also ask the Council if the proposed increase in rates by $35-$55 per week will be enough to cover the cost of fluoride "enforcement"?

The cost of possible liabilities when the people employed to handle the poison (which is alleged by the Council "not harmful or toxic") get sick will also be passed onto the ratepayers.

(Remember, that asbestos was also proclaimed to be safe!).

As the off-gassed fluoride is highly corrosive, infrastructure deteriorates over time.

Who is going to pay for replacing the expensive equipment even if the original is to be paid for by the Department of Health?

Should we prepare ourselves for another rate rise every seven years when fluoride injection infrastructure needs replacement?

Is the sewer system infrastructure capable of removing the fluorides or reducing them to acceptable levels?

What will be the cost of additional treatment to the sewer?

Also, who is going to pay for cosmetic dentistry to treat the teeth damaged by fluoride over-dosing?

According to UNICEF and the discussed AIHW report, Australia has got the highest rate of dental fluorosis.

The American Dental Association has issued an official warning in November 2006 not to use fluoridated water to reconsitute baby formula, but our health officials seem to be living on a "flat earth" refusing to communicate with the rest of the world.

They only see some "mini" statistics comparing Wyong with Gosford hospital admission lists, statistics that would have no value in the scientific world without being "peer reviewed'.

Sodium fluoride is entirely different from organic calcium-fluoro-phosphate needed by our bodies and provided by nature.

This organic calcium-fluoro-phosphate, derived from proper foods, is an edible organic salt, insoluble in water and assimilable by the human body, whereas the non-organic sodium fluoride used in fluoridating water is poisonous to the body and fully water-soluble.

The body refuses to assimilate it.

Fluoride is specifically removed during fertilizer manufacture (to prevent consumption by livestock) and collected in pollution scrubbers (to prevent release to the atmosphere) but then sold to add to human water supplies as a means to reduce tooth decay.

Instead of paying for disposal of their toxic waste, the aluminum, steel, and phosphate manufacturers get paid for dumping it into our drinking water together with associated elements, such as arsenic and lead.

What they put into our drinking water is not a pharmaceutical grade product that can be found in toothpastes.

Human beings are drinking toxic industrial waste!

Fluoride is big business, billions of dollars per year are generated and the industry has a big lobbying budget.

The big industrial polluters could be called the alchemists of 21st century, who can turn toxic waste into gold.

In spite of having more than 60 per cent of its population forced to drink fluoridated water Australia does not have much to celebrate.

An analysis by the health insurer MBF showed that six-year-olds experienced the biggest increase in private hospital admissions for the treatment of dental cavities with 42 admissions in 2000 almost doubling to 82 in 2005.

In the view of this report, the "fluoride generation" does not perform very well.

The previous generation is not known for treating their six-year-olds teeth in hospitals.

First of all the previous generation has had 40 years more to develop their cavities - let's check the statistics again in 40 years.

Is it worth to spend time and money on even debating the fluoride issue knowing that only a small percent of the total volume of artificially fluoridated water will be consumed and knowing that the consequences of the enforcement will be legally contested?

Zofia Majak Ettalong Beach